A critical challenge for managing individuals with Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM) offenses is addressing their risk of sexual recidivism, especially contact sexual offending. We report on a meta-analysis of 30 non-overlapping samples (total N = 25,978), with 26 samples identifying CSEM index offenses and subsequent recidivism using official sources (e.g., charges) and four samples identifying CSEM offenses and subsequent recidivism using self-report. Individuals with CSEM offenses based on official sources showed a fixed-effect recidivism rate of 5.9 % any sexual (95 % CI = [5.6, 6.3], k [studies] = 21, N = 19,112), 1.5 % contact sexual (95 % CI = [1.4, 1.7], k = 20, N = 18,543), and 4.1 % CSEM (95 % CI = [3.8, 4.4], k = 21, N = 13,522), after an average of 5-year follow-up. Based on official sources, the odds of contact sexual offenses among Mixed individuals (CSEM plus contact sexual offending) are 16 times higher than CSEM-Exclusive individuals (exclusively CSEM offenses in their sexual offending history) at 8.8 % versus 0.6 % (OR = 15.99), respectively. There were several other significant moderators: National sources of official recidivism data produced higher rates than local sources ( Q ∆ = 58.1, p < .0001, df = 1); official recidivism had lower rates than self-reported recidivism ( Q ∆ = 232.2, p < .0001, df = 1); longer follow-ups were associated with higher rates, unstandardized B = 0.01, Z = 75.8, p < .001; and more recent studies showed higher rates, unstandardized B = 0.002, Z = 68.0, p < .001. This meta-analysis establishes new recidivism base rates for individuals with CSEM offenses, which can be used to inform risk-driven policies and practices. • Individuals with CSEM offenses rarely commit a new contact sexual offense. • Those with both CSEM and contact sex offenses reoffend more than those with exclusively CSEM offenses. • Management of CSEM must consider presence of contact sex offenses to inform risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baskurt et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: